Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Maybe spend less time worrying about why people choose the avatars they have and more time focusing on your flawed arguments on this topic...?

I happen to believe that avatars should mean something. At least to the point where they don't indicate the complete opposite of your actual political positions. Enough said.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I can't believe RINO's on this forum are questioning Mecha's bona fide conservative credentials.

@Wulfric, why do you really feel the validity of other people's marriages need to be put up to a vote?

[CountryClassSF]

I can't believe RINO's on this forum are questioning Mecha's bona fide conservative credentials.

@Wulfric, why do you really feel the validity of other people's marriages need to be put up to a vote?

We are a Republic for the people and by the people.  Since the radical gay movement believes public is on their side, it certainly shouldn't be a problem.

The gay movement didn't have a problem "Voting" on SSM in Washington and Maine and Maryland, did they.

[King]

Maybe spend less time worrying about why people choose the avatars they have and more time focusing on your flawed arguments on this topic...?

I happen to believe that avatars should mean something. At least to the point where they don't indicate the complete opposite of your actual political positions. Enough said.

you are way too dependant on identity politics to be an independent.  pls resign

[Torie]

Are we drawing a clear distinction here between baking a custom cake to be used 1) for a gay wedding that has a gay wedding theme design, 2) a cake with a generic wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, 3) a generic cake with no wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, and 4) a cake to be used for a birthday party for a gay? To me, there clearly is an excellent case for a religious conscience exception for having to cater a gay wedding at the wedding site, and I strongly suspect SCOTUS would agree. As to numbers 1 through 4 above, I tend to favor an exemption for number 1, 2 is a very close case but I tend to lean against a religious exemption, but could be persuaded otherwise potentially, and there is no real case for an exemption for numbers 3 and 4.

That link TJ gave seemed to be about Lesbians by  the way. As noted, even assuming the data isn't GIGO, the real question to ask are the outcomes between children of unmarried gays, and married gays.

How does this compare to your opinions on scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 if it were an interracial couple instead of a gay one? A marriage between people who had married before?  A Catholic baker and a marriage between Catholics outside the church?

I am unaware of any theology that is against interracial marriage, so I would consider such a claim to be ersatz. As to the other two examples, I would have the same attitudes.

[Brittain33]

I am unaware of any theology that is against interracial marriage, so I would consider such a claim to be ersatz. As to the other two examples, I would have the same attitudes.

1. "If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." -- Brigham Young

2. How did Bob Jones University defend its ban on interracial dating?

Neither of these are currently in force, which goes to show much "deeply felt religious objections" tend to track with the culture as a whole rather than absolute theology.

[bedstuy]

- I realize that couples marry out of love for each other and not just out of a desire to have children, but the state obviously incentivizes it mainly because of the procreation aspect. Even though not all of the benefits of marriage clearly benefit the child, the state still offers these benefits to attract couples to marriage, which makes it more likely that they will choose to have a child. Obviously, the state has a limited amount of money, so it only makes sense to fully incentivize the marriages that most promote its interest in procreation, and that is opposite sex couples, who unlike most gay couples, can typically reproduce and can therefore have children regardless of the availability of adopting children.

Are you seriously saying that gay marriage is too expensive?

Let me just cut to the heart of this dumb argument. 

You keep using the word "incentivize."  This means "to provide with an incentive."  An incentive is something that, "incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action."  So, when we talk about incentives in a law, we're talking about how the law is going to influence different people to act. 

So, who pray tell, has less incentive to have children if we have same-sex marriage? 

Do you mean that the government wants homosexual people to be completely closeted and have heterosexual relationships and families?  Do you mean that same sex marriage will encourage or promote homosexuality and turned straight people gay?  What is the way that this incentive works by inciting people to action?

[7,052,770]

Are we drawing a clear distinction here between baking a custom cake to be used 1) for a gay wedding that has a gay wedding theme design, 2) a cake with a generic wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, 3) a generic cake with no wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, and 4) a cake to be used for a birthday party for a gay? To me, there clearly is an excellent case for a religious conscience exception for having to cater a gay wedding at the wedding site, and I strongly suspect SCOTUS would agree. As to numbers 1 through 4 above, I tend to favor an exemption for number 1, 2 is a very close case but I tend to lean against a religious exemption, but could be persuaded otherwise potentially, and there is no real case for an exemption for numbers 3 and 4.

That link TJ gave seemed to be about Lesbians by  the way. As noted, even assuming the data isn't GIGO, the real question to ask are the outcomes between children of unmarried gays, and married gays.

How does this compare to your opinions on scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 if it were an interracial couple instead of a gay one? A marriage between people who had married before?  A Catholic baker and a marriage between Catholics outside the church?

I am unaware of any theology that is against interracial marriage, so I would consider such a claim to be ersatz. As to the other two examples, I would have the same attitudes.

Torie, PPP polls have shown that a plurality of Mississippi Republican voters think interracial marriage should be illegal. I don't know if they've asked other states, but I imagine it would be similar across the rural South.

[publicunofficial]

Wulfric's question dodging is something to be admired. He gets his awful argument destroyed by multiple posters, and all he does is complain about misleading avatars.

[Alcon]

Maybe spend less time worrying about why people choose the avatars they have and more time focusing on your flawed arguments on this topic...?

I happen to believe that avatars should mean something. At least to the point where they don't indicate the complete opposite of your actual political positions. Enough said.

Dude, you just complained that people were taking gay marriage too seriously, so you stopped defending your (really bad) arguments against gay marriage, in favor of complaining about misleading Atlas Forum avatars?

Your reply to me basically just reiterated your argument without responding to any of my critiques.  I already pointed out this flaw in your argument in the last thread, but bedstudy's rebuttal reiterates it.  You're basically adopting procreation as the only goal that matters in recognizing marriages (because apparently we don't have reason to incentivize adoption??), ignoring all other positive social effects of marriage.  Are you going to respond to that rebuttal?  What about the problem of using this logic to exclude other groups with lesser outcomes from the marital incentive?  Isn't the point of good policy supposed to be that it provides a net-positive, not that it provides more of a positive than any other given policy?

This argument has a lot of really glaring holes in it.  I'm really not trying to be mean -- but this has "completely rationalized" written all over it.

[Mechaman]

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

So much for you being a conservative.

How dare you good sir?  How freaking dare you!

You see the real fake conservatives are moderate hero interlopers like you who took over the party in the Bush years who have done as much as possible to sideshow real conservative ideas like lower spending, less wars, less regulations, etc etc in the name of some extremist almost Bryan inspired crusade against what people do in their personal lives.  I for one will not have my conservative Republican values questioned, especially by you.

There is nothing at all conservative about using the apparatus of the state to dictate moral code to people.  Something people like you have not learned from all those wonderful instances of "progressive" intervention like Prohibition, immigration restrictions, anti-saloon legislation, and other disturbingly authoritarian Puritanical instances of social engineering.

Even Barry Goldwater stood against these hatemongers.  So-called "conservatives" now days seem all too willing to embrace them.

My conservatism is hardcore, how's yours?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Yes, I know there are benefits to marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation such as joint tax filing, inheriting the estate of your spouse, health insurance benefits, hospital visitation and what not. But the state interest that most convinces the state to incentivize marriage is generally its interest in procreation, not its interest in insuring people or making tax filing easier. The state should be able to say that it is only going to fully incentivize those relationships that are most beneficial to its interest in procreation, which is obviously the opposite sex marriage over the same sex marriage. Yes, we should incentivize adoption, and that's why I support civil unions for same sex couples, but we should not treat it like a marriage nor incenvtize it as much as (traditional) marriage, because it is not as beneficial to the state's interest in procreation.

- Again, we cannot use this logic to exclude straight poor people or straight short people from full benefits of traditional marriage because they still can, unlike (most) same sex couples, procreate on their own. That simple fact - self-procreation being possible - means that no reduction in benefits is justifiable, because they still benefit the state's interest in procreation by an amount very close to that of the average straight couple, and way more than any sex same couple does. As said upthread, lack of wealth doesn't really persuade people against procreating, meaning that middle class opposite sex couples and poor opposite sex couples are roughly equally beneficial to the state's interest in procreation, and tons more beneficial than a same sex couple. So, therefore, no reduction of benefits is needed for disadvantaged opposite sex couples.

Bottom Line: The state should always make the decision that is most beneficial to its interests, in this case the interest in procreation, and that means only giving full incentives to opposite sex couples.

[CountryClassSF]

I am glad that there are some out there that are unafraid to stand up to the homosexualist juggernaut. Society and pop culture have strategized to make a pro-traditional marriage argument socially unacceptable  - especially in gay circles.  It's a form of intimidation and bullying.

[Ebsy]

I am glad that there are some out there that are unafraid to stand up to the homosexualist juggernaut. Society and pop culture have strategized to make a pro-traditional marriage argument socially unacceptable  - especially in gay circles.  It's a form of intimidation and bullying.

Well, that's a turn of phrase I have certainly never heard.

[afleitch]

Yes, I know there are benefits to marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation such as joint tax filing, inheriting the estate of your spouse, health insurance benefits, hospital visitation and what not. But the state interest that most convinces the state to incentivize marriage is generally its interest in procreation, not its interest in insuring people or making tax filing easier.

You keep saying this over and over. But where is your evidence that that is the state's main interest when tested in law?

Justice Kagan said this in 2013:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, ... Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that ... both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional —

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: ... I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.


Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was a landmark decision in Massachusetts in which the court addressed and dismissed the three rationales the DPH offered for its marriage licensing policy: "(1) providing a 'favorable setting for procreation'; (2) ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as 'a two-parent family with one parent of each sex'; and (3) preserving scarce State and private financial resources."

The first, she wrote, incorrectly posits that the state privileges "procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people". Rather "Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married."

The misconception that "'marriage is procreation'", she wrote, "confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect."

The second, the marriage of a man and a woman as the "optimal setting for child rearing", a claim she said many Massachusetts statutes and the notion of "the best interests of the child" refuted, she found irrelevant, in that denying marriage licenses to one class of persons does not effect the marriage patterns of the other class. She turned the argument against the DPH: "the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws."

She concluded that "It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation." She dismissed the third rationale as an unjustified generalization about the economic interdependence of same-sex partners.

[Alcon]

- Again, we cannot use this logic to exclude straight poor people or straight short people from full benefits of traditional marriage because they still can, unlike (most) same sex couples, procreate on their own. That simple fact - self-procreation being possible - means that no reduction in benefits is justifiable, because they still benefit the state's interest in procreation by an amount very close to that of the average straight couple, and way more than any sex same couple does.

Could you rephrase the bolded part?  It doesn't make any sense to me as it reads.

- Yes, I know there are benefits to marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation such as joint tax filing, inheriting the estate of your spouse, health insurance benefits, hospital visitation and what not. But the state interest that most convinces the state to incentivize marriage is generally its interest in procreation, not its interest in insuring people or making tax filing easier. The state should be able to say that it is only going to fully incentivize those relationships that are most beneficial to its interest in procreation, which is obviously the opposite sex marriage over the same sex marriage. Yes, we should incentivize adoption, and that's why I support civil unions for same sex couples, but we should not treat it like a marriage nor incenvtize it as much as (traditional) marriage, because it is not as beneficial to the state's interest in procreation.

...

As said upthread, lack of wealth doesn't really persuade people against procreating, meaning that middle class opposite sex couples and poor opposite sex couples are roughly equally beneficial to the state's interest in procreation, and tons more beneficial than a same sex couple. So, therefore, no reduction of benefits is needed for disadvantaged opposite sex couples.

Bottom Line: The state should always make the decision that is most beneficial to its interests, in this case the interest in procreation, and that means only giving full incentives to opposite sex couples.

You seem to be arguing that, even if sanctioning gay relationships is a net social positive, marriage should be retained to incentivize only the most ideal relationships -- heterosexuals reproducing.  As far as I can tell, that means you must be arguing one of three things:

1. Recognizing gay relationships has no net social benefit.  [Considering what you said about civil unions, I doubt you're arguing this.]

2. Recognizing gay relationships has net social benefit, but procreation is the only social benefit relevant to recognizing marriages.

3. Recognizing gay relationships has net social benefit, but we should only use marriage to incentivize the most socially beneficial unions.  Gay unions are not the most socially beneficial unions because, even if they provide other net-positives, they are inferior in terms of procreation.  The government should not incentivize unions that have sub-optimal social benefit.

As far as I can tell, no other argument is consistent with what you've written.  I can't quite tell if you're arguing #2 or #3, though.  I want to make sure I understand your argument very precisely before we go any further.

Thanks.

[pbrower2a]

We could see something big tomorrow. I am convinced that the Supreme Court will make the decision national quickly. Federal rulings tend to apply to all states unless something very specific relates to one state or a few, as on voting rights.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We could see something big tomorrow. I am convinced that the Supreme Court will make the decision national quickly. Federal rulings tend to apply to all states unless something very specific relates to one state or a few, as on voting rights.

Doubtful. This is a big case and SCOTUS likes to take their time with them. While they may not wait until the last week of the term, I'll be surprised if they rule before June, especially if Roberts is trying to figure out how he can be part of a 6-3 ruling.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We could see something big tomorrow. I am convinced that the Supreme Court will make the decision national quickly. Federal rulings tend to apply to all states unless something very specific relates to one state or a few, as on voting rights.

Tomorrow is just oral arguments. Nothing will be decided until June.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Nobody has a compelling counterargument on the age question. Very old people, or people who are otherwise demonstrably infertile, are allowed to get married and stay married. There has been no convincing argument for why this should be the case if marriage is solely or even only primarily about procreation.

Back to the case of the vendors, those poor put-upon bakers and florists. In what other cases do bakers and florists demand before delivering services to know what the flowers or cakes are going to be used for after they're sold? If I buy a bouquet of flowers from Joe's Flower Shack to use in my Satanic ritual, am I illicitly betraying his conscience by involving him in my black mass? Why or why not, and why is the answer the same or different as if I took those flowers to decorate an altar at a wedding between two dudes?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

- Again, we cannot use this logic to exclude straight poor people or straight short people from full benefits of traditional marriage because they still can, unlike (most) same sex couples, procreate on their own. That simple fact - self-procreation being possible - means that no reduction in benefits is justifiable, because they still benefit the state's interest in procreation by an amount very close to that of the average straight couple, and way more than any sex same couple does.

Could you rephrase the bolded part?  It doesn't make any sense to me as it reads.

- Yes, I know there are benefits to marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation such as joint tax filing, inheriting the estate of your spouse, health insurance benefits, hospital visitation and what not. But the state interest that most convinces the state to incentivize marriage is generally its interest in procreation, not its interest in insuring people or making tax filing easier. The state should be able to say that it is only going to fully incentivize those relationships that are most beneficial to its interest in procreation, which is obviously the opposite sex marriage over the same sex marriage. Yes, we should incentivize adoption, and that's why I support civil unions for same sex couples, but we should not treat it like a marriage nor incenvtize it as much as (traditional) marriage, because it is not as beneficial to the state's interest in procreation.

...

As said upthread, lack of wealth doesn't really persuade people against procreating, meaning that middle class opposite sex couples and poor opposite sex couples are roughly equally beneficial to the state's interest in procreation, and tons more beneficial than a same sex couple. So, therefore, no reduction of benefits is needed for disadvantaged opposite sex couples.

Bottom Line: The state should always make the decision that is most beneficial to its interests, in this case the interest in procreation, and that means only giving full incentives to opposite sex couples.

You seem to be arguing that, even if sanctioning gay relationships is a net social positive, marriage should be retained to incentivize only the most ideal relationships -- heterosexuals reproducing.  As far as I can tell, that means you must be arguing one of three things:

1. Recognizing gay relationships has no net social benefit.  [Considering what you said about civil unions, I doubt you're arguing this.]

2. Recognizing gay relationships has net social benefit, but procreation is the only social benefit relevant to recognizing marriages.

3. Recognizing gay relationships has net social benefit, but we should only use marriage to incentivize the most socially beneficial unions.  Gay unions are not the most socially beneficial unions because, even if they provide other net-positives, they are inferior in terms of procreation.  The government should not incentivize unions that have sub-optimal social benefit.

As far as I can tell, no other argument is consistent with what you've written.  I can't quite tell if you're arguing #2 or #3, though.  I want to make sure I understand your argument very precisely before we go any further.

Thanks.

For the bolded: Basically, any opposite sex couple, poor or rich, short or tall, is more beneficial to the state interest in procreation than the same sex couple, because the opposite sex couple can typically self-procreate and the same sex couple typically cannot. No one decides to not have a child based on how tall they or their spouse is, and lack of wealth isn't great at stopping people either. This means that all opposite sex couples are roughly equally beneficial to the state interest in procreation, and therefore no reduction of recognition for disadvantaged opposite sex couples can be justified.

I'm arguing #3 from your list.

[Slander and/or Libel]

What about an opposite sex marriage between two people who are completely infertile?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Back to the case of the vendors, those poor put-upon bakers and florists. In what other cases do bakers and florists demand before delivering services to know what the flowers or cakes are going to be used for after they're sold? If I buy a bouquet of flowers from Joe's Flower Shack to use in my Satanic ritual, am I illicitly betraying his conscience by involving him in my black mass? Why or why not, and why is the answer the same or different as if I took those flowers to decorate an altar at a wedding between two dudes?

I can't think of any reason a florist would want to know why someone wants a single bouquet of flowers. But as has been pointed out, a florist or a baker will typically have a more substantial involvement in a wedding ceremony than that.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Back to the case of the vendors, those poor put-upon bakers and florists. In what other cases do bakers and florists demand before delivering services to know what the flowers or cakes are going to be used for after they're sold? If I buy a bouquet of flowers from Joe's Flower Shack to use in my Satanic ritual, am I illicitly betraying his conscience by involving him in my black mass? Why or why not, and why is the answer the same or different as if I took those flowers to decorate an altar at a wedding between two dudes?

I can't think of any reason a florist would want to know why someone wants a single bouquet of flowers. But as has been pointed out, a florist or a baker will typically have a more substantial involvement in a wedding ceremony than that.

Yes, I understand this. But for instance, when I got married, the florist was only involved in preparing the flowers. We went over and picked them up and brought them to the venue. A set of bouquets, a set of boutonnieres, and a couple of arrangements for the front of the ceremony. The florist's involvement began and ended at the flower shop.

[Torie]

I am unaware of any theology that is against interracial marriage, so I would consider such a claim to be ersatz. As to the other two examples, I would have the same attitudes.

1. "If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." -- Brigham Young

2. How did Bob Jones University defend its ban on interracial dating?

Neither of these are currently in force, which goes to show much "deeply felt religious objections" tend to track with the culture as a whole rather than absolute theology.

Well that was then, and now is now. If one wants to roll back the clock, the issue gets more difficult. I suppose if the religious claim is legit, one must accept it, to a limited extent. If things get out of hand, maybe we would then need a Constitutional amendment. In thinking about it, I suppose I would draw a distinction between a "legitimate" religious organization, or tradition, and someone just making up their own religion, as a cover. The IRS does not accept that, and if someone created a religion that had a high correlation with the Nazi "theology," that simply does not deserve as much deference, even if it truly is a religious claim made in good faith, rather than a disingenuous cover for execrable conduct. Hard as it may be to believe, that law does incorporate some tradition of what is practical, and makes good sense, just as was one time noted by Justice Jackson, the "law is not a suicide pact" (in the context of balancing individual liberties in time of war). One does not need to take things to a logical extreme, and slide all the way down the slippery slope. All things must be balanced, to seek to effect the best one can that sometimes elusive golden mean.